Interview: Guido Schätti
Martin Ackermann (51) was the face of the Corona crisis. The head of the federal scientific task force appeared almost weekly at times, warning of rising case numbers and collapsing hospitals, often in vain. That went to the substance. With the normalization initiated by the Federal Council, the ETH professor is giving up his job. Blick met him for a farewell interview via zoom.
Mr. Ackermann, how bad will the fourth wave be?
Martin Ackermann: That depends on how many still get vaccinated, which variant prevails and how people behave. It is extremely difficult to make a prognosis. What is clear, however, is that the virus will not go away. Unvaccinated people will come into contact with it sooner or later.
So the danger is not over?
No. Three million people in Switzerland have no immunity. That is significantly more than have been infected so far. If they become infected within a few months, it leads to a lot of hospitalizations.
Our neighboring countries are expanding the certificate requirement. Federal Councilor Alain Berset finds the discussion “bizarre” and rules it out in Switzerland. Do you find that bizarre too?
From a scientific point of view, I can say that the certificate is part of a protection concept and allows as many activities as possible to take place safely.
So you think an expansion would make sense?
It is a political decision.
On the trail of old age
ETH Professor Martin Ackermann (51) was head of the federal scientific task force for over a year. He headed the body with ten expert groups and around 70 researchers and advised the Federal Council. Ackermann studied biology in Basel, did some research in the USA and has been Professor of Evolutionary Biology at ETH Zurich since 2015. His specialty is research into aging using bacteria. He was born in Schwyz, but grew up in Zofingen AG. The father of two school-age children lives with his family in Zurich. He prefers to spend his free time outside – with a tent or mountain bike.
ETH Professor Martin Ackermann (51) was head of the federal scientific task force for over a year. He headed the body with ten expert groups and around 70 researchers and advised the Federal Council. Ackermann studied biology in Basel, did some research in the USA and has been Professor of Evolutionary Biology at ETH Zurich since 2015. His specialty is research into aging using bacteria. He was born in Schwyz, but grew up in Zofingen AG. The father of two school-age children lives with his family in Zurich. He prefers to spend his free time outside – with a tent or mountain bike.
Switzerland has a low vaccination rate. What do you say to people who absolutely do not want to be vaccinated?
I have no trouble accepting someone who consciously decides not to be vaccinated. There are also people around me who have not been vaccinated. When people rely on arguments that are scientifically untenable, I try to give them the facts.
Let’s take the test: I’ve always been healthy. Then I don’t have to get vaccinated!
If you don’t get vaccinated, sooner or later you will catch the virus. From a health point of view, vaccination is much less dangerous than infection. In addition, with the vaccination you not only protect yourself, but also help us all get out of the crisis faster.
Nice and good. But I don’t trust the mRNA vaccines. This is newfangled stuff, we just don’t have enough experience with this technology.
It is actually the first mRNA vaccination, but the scientific basis has been worked out very carefully. Never before has there been a vaccination study that provided so much information about the effects and side effects.
You want to increase the vaccination rate by addressing people directly and clarifying such questions with them. In Switzerland, however, this fails because of data protection. Do you have any other suggestions?
You can also address people directly if you don’t have a list of those who have been vaccinated. We can support people in their vaccination decision. Many are not against vaccination on principle, but for various reasons they haven’t gotten to it yet. We have to make them simple offers.
How specific?
Family doctors often have a trusting relationship with their patients and can reach them easily. Vaccinations in the company can also help. I would probably forget my annual flu shot if I didn’t have the opportunity at work. The easier the access, the more people you can reach.
How high does the vaccination rate have to be for the pandemic to be history in two months?
We have enough very effective vaccines and an infrastructure that allows us to vaccinate over 100,000 people a day. If the three million people who are now without immune protection were to be vaccinated, the virus would not have disappeared, but there would be no more waves that threaten the health system and thus the whole of society.
We had such a wave last fall. They warned for weeks, but the federal government and the cantons pushed the ball to each other and did nothing.
The number of infections and hospital admissions doubled every week at that time. That was the most difficult time for me. It was clear: if this continues, the health system will be overloaded. If only the wave had been slowed down a week earlier, far fewer people would have been infected and sick and fewer would have died. We would have gone into winter with a lower number of cases and could have relaxed earlier.
Didn’t you have a direct line to politics?
Yes, in autumn we were able to establish a dialogue, we also had a meeting with the entire Federal Council.
Nevertheless, the decision-makers hesitated. How was that for you?
That was the time when I lay awake or woke up almost every night and couldn’t get back to sleep.
What has to change politically so that the system does not block itself?
Federalism has many advantages as it allows the differences between cultures and cantons to be taken into account. But last autumn every day counted. Federalism made it difficult to make quick, supraregional decisions. We don’t need to turn the whole system upside down, but we do need to make sure we can act quickly when we need to. But it must also be said: Switzerland reacted very quickly in the first wave. It only became more difficult when the extraordinary situation was over.
The task force had to formally impose itself on the federal government in spring 2020. Does science not get enough attention in Switzerland?
I wouldn’t say that we pushed ourselves, but we were convinced that scientific expertise is needed in this crisis. The crisis has intensified the constructive exchange between science and politics. I am happy if the task force can disband as quickly as possible, because that means that the crisis is over. But the dialogue must definitely continue.
There was also tension within the task force. Individual exponents left the committee with a roar. They had to mediate between virus hunters and people who had a broader social perspective.
There was a lot of discussion, but that’s part of science. The different positions helped us to develop a balanced view. That was a big advantage of the Swiss model. There were many countries in which the support group consisted primarily of doctors and epidemiologists. We also had researchers from ethics, economics and digitization and other disciplines in the task force.
Taskforce member Marcel Tanner criticized that certain scientists would rather look in the mirror than out of the window. Is the Twitter generation primarily interested in self-profiling?
Of course, there are different characters and temperaments among researchers. For most of them, suddenly being in public was a new experience. The decisive factor, however, was that the task force always dealt with the matter. Ultimately, everyone wanted to help Switzerland get through this crisis better.
The task force misjudged the third wave in spring 2021. Their model predicted an overload of the health system, in fact the numbers flattened out.
Yes, luckily we were wrong. We realized with hindsight that a pandemic could take an unforeseen turn. There are so many factors at play; if one changes, it has a big impact on the whole. What is important, for example, is how people behave when they are opened. Apparently most people had learned to behave in such a way as not to get infected. We underestimated that.
The false positive has cost the task force’s credibility.
In retrospect, I wish we had better realized how great the scientific uncertainties actually were at the time. At the same time, we were convinced that there was a great risk. It was our responsibility to communicate that – even at the risk of it not happening.
You were personally attacked, even a criminal complaint was filed against you for allegedly terrifying the population.
The hostility went to the substance. But there was also factual criticism that was very welcome.
How did your family deal with it?
I tried to shield them as best I could. Above all, I was happy that the schools stayed open. That helped us a lot as a family.
Have you ever thought of giving up begging?
No, we had a very close cohesion in our group, and the dialogue with the FOPH and the interior department was very intensive. They had to keep going, no matter how much pressure they were under. That’s why it was never an issue for me to get out.
Would you take the job again?
In any case. I have been a professor at ETH for more than ten years. Switzerland invests a lot in research and ensures the best possible conditions. If there is a chance that I can stand up for society, I would do it again at any time. It was a rough time, but I learned a lot.
What especially?
That science has to understand how politics works and politics how science works. The dialogue is extremely important, because political constraints often prevent implementation of what might be right from a scientific point of view.
And as a person?
I’ve never had such a difficult time. The level of stress went way beyond what I knew before. I think I’ll be much more relaxed in many situations in the future.